Live data from Hacker News

An update on salary transparency in job posts

directlyapply.com

141–150 of 150 posts

Re: An update on salary transparency in job posts

#141
post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most people don't know what a $400k Security Engineer actually does to warrant that pay because you can probably find a similar job at another company that pays much less and probably makes you work more. I sure as fuck don't and I at least have one pentesting cert FWIW. This pricing scheme punishes people trying to be honest about their skill set. Otherwise why stop at the average? Just max it out and ask for $700k.…

Do ask for 700 but be prepared to be passed over for a candidate that's better but asked for less. And if you are exceptional (compared to others) then you damn well deserve it. Comparison to the rest of the market (on both sides) is the crux here, not being 'honest' or whatever (what does this even mean). Isn't it?

>Comparison to the rest of the market (on both sides) is the crux here, not being 'honest' or whatever (what does this even mean). Isn't it?

That market comparison is fraught with conditions and often only follows ill-defined job titles.

If you take a look at one of these postings - https://jobs.netflix.com/jobs/292552236 - you'll note that the way it's written, there aren't any exceptional job requirements here. It's hard to see why the salary range has such a high ceiling.

Obviously in the interview, they could have much higher requirements, but we don't know that unless someone from Netflix chimes in.

For example,

>You have knowledge of various regulations and controls (SOX, PCI, CCPA, GDPR, etc)

how much is knowledge of each of those worth towards the final salary? Pricing each of those would add more fidelity to the market's signals, but companies often don't do that. Same with technical skills or knowledge of individual products: how much is AWS knowledge worth at the beginner, intermediate, and expert levels to a job that needs AWS knowledge?

This is like buying a publicly traded stock (not yolo'ing) with roughly 80% of the company information not available to you. That information is there for a reason because it promotes market efficiency. It allows you to more easily compare two companies that do similar work.

This is what is meant by honesty, but the job market hides this information. And the job market is often dishonest because it does not price these things, because it is hiding information from applicants, because that gives an advantage to employers. An extremely wide salary range here only serves that goal.

And on the employee side, it would mean that I can go learn AWS to a certain level, and I know that skill would contribute $X amount to the final salary that I can ask for. I don't have to play games trying to sell my skills for more than they're worth.

Re: An update on salary transparency in job posts

#142
post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Every one of these comments so far are from people that have no idea how much Netflix pays. $600k-700k for a Senior Software Engineer at Netflix is about expected. Also keep in mind, they pay all cash, so this isn't a "Total Compensation" number. I have a friend who made over $1 million cash at Netflix per year. Their philosophy is to pay top of market for the best talent.

Then why do they start the range at $100k?

Exactly what I was questioning in my post.

Re: An update on salary transparency in job posts

#143
post #7

I hope the next step is narrowing the ranges of "info" provided. You'll sometimes see postings like "Sr Staff Engineer at [fancy corp]: 135K-900K". Info like that is better than nothing, sure, but not by much.

I've seen companies give the range for an entire career ladder even though the listing is for a specific level. The laws aren't comprehensive enough to require it, but they should actually break it down instead. E.g. SWE1 135-155, SWE2 150-175, Sr SWE 165-200, etc. They should also detail equity comp and bonus.

If you don't do this, somebody qualified for Sr Staff will see a ridiculously low minimum, assume that's total compensation, and ignore your listing.

Re: An update on salary transparency in job posts

#144
post #2

Now lets quantify how many of them are absurd listings. Recently saw a Senior Security Engineer role for Netflix, $100-$700k salary range. How is someone supposed to reasonably negotiate that role? $100k is clearly a joke, $700k is clearly a salary someone got during the bubble. Do I come in at $400k? Is $250k a bargain rate? https://imgur.com/a/0Fe00Qf

The median range is somewhere around 40%, that is the max is 40% or so above the min. That’s based on my analysis of over 5 million job postings with salary ranges in them. A subset here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1j0Xap2Qt1bzY-8OA1Gqk.... Which is around what most salary ranges for a specific job grade have [1]

That’s my data, which you requested, so yes, there are absurd ones, but it’s not the vast majority by far. So don’t throw the baby out with the bath water based on one outlier you just found

[1] https://www.aihr.com/hr-glossary/range-spread/#:~:text=A%20g....

Re: An update on salary transparency in job posts

#145
post #2

Now lets quantify how many of them are absurd listings. Recently saw a Senior Security Engineer role for Netflix, $100-$700k salary range. How is someone supposed to reasonably negotiate that role? $100k is clearly a joke, $700k is clearly a salary someone got during the bubble. Do I come in at $400k? Is $250k a bargain rate? https://imgur.com/a/0Fe00Qf

That’s what I’ve seen as well, it’s always a range with a huuuuuge gap. No one is posting the actual expected salary. It’s almost a scam, I could post a job listing with a salary of “$0 to $1,000,000,000.00”. It’s the same as not posting a salary number at all

The median range is somewhere around 40%, that is the max is 40% or so above the min. That’s based on my analysis of over 5 million job postings with salary ranges in them. A subset here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1j0Xap2Qt1bzY-8OA1Gqk.... Which is around what most salary ranges for a specific job grade have [1]

That’s my data, not my gut. So yes, there are absurd ones, but it’s not the vast majority by far. So don’t throw the baby out with the bath water based on some outliers

[1] https://www.aihr.com/hr-glossary/range-spread/#:~:text=A%20g....

Re: An update on salary transparency in job posts

#146
post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The post says L4. That’s not junior or principal, it’s L4 (lower/middle). Given the specific level, the salary range is indeed absurd.

Yeah, providing a range when they specify the level is unethical, I agree

A range appropriate for the stated level is reasonable, but a range that (apparantely) encompasses their entire set of levels doesn't make sense. I would seriously wonder if the 100-700k part of the post was a mistake, because that would probably turn off a lot of candidates (preventing them from even applying).

Re: An update on salary transparency in job posts

#147
post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is an often proffered limitation of these laws, but there are second order effects. If someone hires a woman, minority, whatever else, at the $100k rate with the same qualifications they typically hire X group at the $700k rate, they're going to have some 'splainin' to do.

Perfect is the enemy of good enough. If laws are found to have bugs, you keep patching them over time to close the loopholes.

Exactly, and so there are a few outliers that don’t follow the spirit or good faith of the law. Guess what? You can ignore them! Nobody says you have to apply. There are plenty of other companies that are publishing informative salary ranges

Re: An update on salary transparency in job posts

#148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> How can an employment market even function otherwise? Employee desperation to have income and health insurance means it's worth going into the interviews blind.

That, and on the flip side, the very American desire to beat the odds and get an especially high offer.

I admire that.

Re: An update on salary transparency in job posts

#149
post #58

this is absolutely welcome. yeah a wide range is still better than nothing. it's actually very simple, surprisingly many job posts still miss them: * location, remote or relocation or hybrid * pay range * job description this saves both sides' time in the end. I also like the 'simple apply' and in fact I only apply for those jobs, i.e. just send out resume, instead of filling out lots of personal info. if the employe…

The number of jobs I've seen that have absolutely no mention of whether they are remote, hybrid, or on-site is astounding. I'm not wasting my time applying for something 1200 miles away just to find out that they want a 2/3 hybrid setup. Realistically I'd never find out because they'll see my address and never contact me.

Or remote with a country or timezone restriction. There's lots of US companies that just say "remote" but forget to mention that the candidate must be a US resident, or work within X timezones, etc. Contrast to worldwide remote companies, which really do hire in all timezones.

Re: An update on salary transparency in job posts

#150
post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why? This doesn't line up to the reality of how headcount is allocated or how budgets are set. Every position has a range the hiring manager can place the new hire in given their experience and fit.

It prevents companies from wasting peoples' time going through a whole interview loop, claiming a job is 200k-400k and then offering 200k-250k regardless. If the 200k isn't attractive to job seekers, they have to raise the floor.

If the budgeted range is 200-400k (it's very likely not) then it's an accurate post. It also shows the applicant that they can get 300k or more if they have a good argument for it beyond "I want it."
Post reply on HN